THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION CHAPTER 6 RESPONSES TO HALT LAND DEGRADATION AND TO RESTORE DEGRADED LAND 435 Coordinating Lead Authors: (Pakistan), Ritesh Kumar (India), German Kust (The Russian Federation), Blanche Lormeteau Ram Pandit (Nepal/Australia), John Parrotta (France), Prasanta Kumar Mishra (India), Joe (United States of America) Morris (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Stephen D. Prince (USA), Lead Authors: Rajesh K. Rai (Nepal), Alka Sabharwal (India), Yaakov Anker (Israel), Emilie Coudel (France/ Louise Willemen (The Netherlands) Brazil), Cristóbal Félix Diaz Morejón (Cuba), Jim Harris (United Kingdom of Great Britain Review Editors: and Northern Ireland), Douglas L. Karlen Susan Galatowitsch (United States of 6(United States of America), Ádám Kertész America), Florencia Montagnini (United States (Hungary), Juana Mariño De Posada of America) (Colombia), Phumza Ntshotsho Simelane (South Africa), Noraini M. Tamin (Malaysia), AND TO RESTORE DEGRADED LAND Daniel Luis Mascia Vieira (Brazil) This chapter should be cited as: Pandit, R., Parrota, J., Anker, Y., Coudel, E., RESPONSES TO HALT LAND DEGRADATION LAND DEGRADATION RESPONSES TO HALT Diaz Morejón, C. F., Harris, J., Karlen, D. L., Fellow: 6. Kertész, Á., Mariño De Posada J. L., Ruishan Chen (China) Ntshotsho Simelane, P., Tamin, N. M., and Vieira, D. L. M. Chapter 6: Responses to halt Contributing Authors: land degradation and to restore degraded Mumuni Abu (Ghana), Sebastian Arnhold land. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES assessment (Germany), Simone Athayde (Brazil), Ben Boer report on land degradation and restoration. (Australia), Violaine Brochier (France), Nicky Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and Brainich, A. Broeckhoven (Belgium), An Cliquet (Belgium), (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Judy Fisher (Australia), Thomas Hahn Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and (Sweden), Eric S. Higgs (Canada), Anton Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, Imeson (the Netherlands), Amanullah Khan pp. 435-528. THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 437 6.1 INTRODUCTION . 440 6.2 RESPONSE TYPOLOGY, OPTIONS AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK . 441 6.2.1 Response typology and options . 441 6.2.2 Response evaluation framework . 442 6.3 DIRECT BIOPHYSICAL AND TECHNICAL RESPONSES TO LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION . .. 445 6.3.1 Assessment of land-use specific responses . 445 6.3.1.1 Responses to cropland degradation . 445 6.3.1.2 Responses to forest land degradation . 449 6.3.1.3 Responses to rangeland degradation . 454 6.3.1.4 Responses to urban land degradation . 456 6.3.1.5 Responses to wetland degradation . 459 6.3.2 Assessment of responses to selected direct drivers and impacts . 462 6.3.2.1 Responses to invasive species . 462 436 6.3.2.2 Responses to mineral extraction . 465 6.3.2.3 Responses to soil quality changes . 467 6.3.2.4 Responses to water quality changes . 470 6.4 ENABLING AND INSTRUMENTAL RESPONSES TO LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION . 473 6.4.1 Responses to indirect drivers: globalization, demographic change and migration . 474 6.4.2 Institutional, policy and governance responses . .. 475 6.4.2.1 Legal and regulatory instruments . 476 6.4.2.2 Rights-based instruments and customary norms . 477 6.4.2.3 Economic and financial instruments . 478 6.4.2.4 Social and cultural instruments . 485 6.4.2.5 Protected areas . 488 AND TO RESTORE DEGRADED LAND 6.4.2.6 Climate change adaptation planning . 490 6.4.3 Integrated landscape approach as a response . 491 RESPONSES TO HALT LAND DEGRADATION LAND DEGRADATION RESPONSES TO HALT 6.4.4 Responses based on research and technology development . 494 6. 6.4.5 Responses based on institutional reforms . 496 6.5 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS . 498 REFERENCES . 499 THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION CHAPTER 6 RESPONSES TO HALT LAND DEGRADATION AND TO RESTORE DEGRADED LAND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY considerations for response actions include: the types and severity of degradation drivers and processes affecting the land {6 .3 .2}; past and present land uses The most cost-effective approach to reduce land and their socio-economic contexts; and institutional, degradation in the long run is to follow the adage policy and governance environments {6 .4 .2} (well “prevention is better than cure” (well established) established) . Further, the effectiveness of these actions {6 .3 .1, 6 .3 .2, 6 .4 .2} . The economic consequences of is often enhanced by the integration of indigenous land degradation are significant . For example, a study and local knowledge and practices (well established) of fourteen Latin American countries estimated annual {6 .4 .2 .2, 6 .4 .2 .4} . losses due to desertification at 8-14% of agricultural gross domestic products (AGDP), while another study estimated Direct biophysical and technical responses, and the global cost of desertification at 1-10% of annual AGDP . their effectiveness to address land degradation 437 Across all biomes, estimates of the ecosystem service drivers and processes, depend on the nature and values lost due to land degradation and conversion range severity of drivers and the prevailing enabling from $4 .3 to $20 .2 trillion per year . In a global study environment (well established) {6 .3 .2} . Responses that considered values of forests for wood, non-wood to land degradation due to invasive species include products, carbon sequestration, recreation and passive identifying and monitoring invasion pathways and uses, it was estimated that the projected degradation adopting quarantine and eradication (mechanical, and land-use change would reduce the value of these cultural, biological and chemical) measures (well forest ecosystem services by $1,180 trillion over a 50-year established) {6 .3 .2 .1} . Responses to land degradation period, between 2000 to 2050 {6 .4 .2 .3} . However, a broad from mineral resource extraction include: on-site range of sustainable land management, soil and water management of mining wastes (soils and water); conservation practices, and nature-based solutions, have reclamation of mine site topography; conservation and been effective in avoiding land degradation in many parts early replacement of topsoil; and passive and active of the world (well established) {6 .3 .1, 6 .3 .2} . For example, restoration measures to recreate functioning grassland, agroecology, conservation agriculture, agroforestry and forest and wetland ecosystems (well established) AND TO RESTORE DEGRADED LAND sustainable forest management can successfully avoid {6 .3 .2 .2} . The responses to invasive species and mineral RESPONSES TO HALT LAND DEGRADATION LAND DEGRADATION RESPONSES TO HALT land degradation, while enhancing the provision of a range extraction-related degradation are successful where of ecosystem services (well established) {6 .3 .1 .1, 6 .3 .2 .3} . restoration plans are fully implemented and monitored 6. Many of these same techniques and measures can also following an adaptive management approach . be used to restore degraded lands, but may be more costly than their use for avoiding land degradation (well Conservation agriculture, agroecology, agroforestry established) {6 .3 .1, 6 .3 .2} . and traditional practices are effective ways to use and manage soil and land resources sustainably (well There are no “one-size-fits-all” biophysical and established) {6 .3 .1 .1} . These management practices can technical responses for avoiding and reducing be effective in reducing soil loss and improving soil quality, land degradation, nor for restoring degraded lands as well as other biogeochemical functions and processes (well established) {6 .3 .1, 6 .3 .2, 6 .4 .2} . Actions to in soils including: biological productivity; hydrological avoid or reverse land degradation (of croplands, forests, processes; filtering; buffering and nutrient cycling; and rangeland, urban land, wetlands) – or to deal with the habitat quality for soil and above-ground organisms and adverse impacts of invasive species, mineral extraction communities {6 .3 .1 .1, 6 .3 .2 .4} . A strong commitment to activities, deterioration of soil health and water quality continuously monitor the quality of soil resources is needed and climate change – are more effective when they are to improve management decisions that consider not only designed to fit local environmental, social, cultural and short-term economic gains, but also off-site and long- economic conditions (well established) {6 .3 .1} . Key term consequences . THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON LAND DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION Effective responses to rangeland degradation to enhance effectiveness of direct biophysical and include land capability and condition assessment technical responses (well established) {6 .4 .1, 6 .4 .2, and monitoring, grazing pressure management, 6 .4 .5} . A range of enabling and instrumental responses are pasture and forage crop improvement, silvopastoral available to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation, management, and weed and pest management (well and address its indirect drivers (e .g ., economic and socio- established) {6 .3 .1 .3} . These biophysical responses are political) . These include a variety of legal and regulatory, generally effective in halting rangeland degradation, but the rights-based, economic and financial, and social and effectiveness can be enhanced by aligning these responses cultural policy instruments such as: customary norms and with social and economic instruments (well established) support for indigenous